Submitted by CA renter on March 18, 2011 - 5:55pm.
From gandalf's link:
On the American Jobs Creation Act
"In 2004, Congress passed the American Jobs Creation Act, which permitted countries to bring back profits from offshore one time at a reduced rate — paying 5.25 percent instead of 35 percent. And companies brought back about $312 billion that qualified for the break, and there's a fair amount of literature that shows very little job creation went on as a result of that. And most of that money was used to buy back stock. And companies right now are lobbying for a repeat of that break."
On remaining competitive
"The U.S. and other countries need to create climates that are conducive to business. That's absolutely true. As long as this system exists where companies have the ability to shift profits, they're going to take advantage of that. I guess the question is: Do we want to have a system where your taxable income has so little relation to where the real-world economic activity takes place and, more broadly, the question it raises about the fairness of the tax system — the result of this is that it shifts the tax burden to the people that don't have the ability to do this, i.e., the 99 percent of Americans who don't have access to sophisticated tax advisers and also to the companies that are not multinational."
------------------
So much for the "rich provide the jobs" hogwash. Trickle-down is a HUGE FAILURE.
Submitted by CA renter on March 19, 2011 - 12:19am.
paramount wrote:
CA renter wrote:
BTW, can someone tells us again how the unions caused all our financial problems?
Who said they caused ALL of our financial problems?
I would say no more than 90% of our financial problems were caused by the public employee unions in California.
How do you arrive at your 90%?
How did you factor in tax breaks (including Prop 13 protection that subsidizes the profits of RE "investors"), or the added burden of an increasingly large illegal immigrant population? How did you factor in the housing bubble and subsequent burst? How about the investments that the pension funds lost so much money on (that had nothing to do with the unions, BTW)? Did you factor in the bond measures that voters have repeatedly voted for, many of whom don't even grasp that these bonds represent DEBT (kid you not, I've had some Republican friends and relatives who thought that bonds "paid for themselves")?
You think unions are responsible for 90% of our budget problems...seriously?
I would say no more than 90% of our financial problems were caused by the public employee unions in California.
Back it up, paramount. Bring facts.
Or were you just 'making shit up'?
I see some problems with public unions, what's happened here in the City of San Diego is corrupt to the core.
But compared to getting gang-raped by the financial industry, the problems are minor. Do the math. As a matter of proportion, we have bigger problems than unions.
Right-wing populists, tea partiers, should be upset with wall street, banks and corporations. Instead they bitch to no end about liberals, unions and hollywood.
Entire generation of clueless idiots re-living Vietnam while corporations and robber barons plunder the country into oblivion.
Submitted by CA renter on March 19, 2011 - 5:10pm.
gandalf wrote:
paramount wrote:
I would say no more than 90% of our financial problems were caused by the public employee unions in California.
Back it up, paramount. Bring facts.
Or were you just 'making shit up'?
I see some problems with public unions, what's happened here in the City of San Diego is corrupt to the core.
But compared to getting gang-raped by the financial industry, the problems are minor. Do the math. As a matter of proportion, we have bigger problems than unions.
Right-wing populists, tea partiers, should be upset with wall street, banks and corporations. Instead they bitch to no end about liberals, unions and hollywood.
Entire generation of clueless idiots re-living Vietnam while corporations and robber barons plunder the country into oblivion.
Remember how the Tea Party originally started out as being against bailing out bankers and FBs? Then, it quietly morphed into being anti-union, anti-healthcare, and anti-taxes. I don't think that was an accident.
Submitted by CA renter on March 19, 2011 - 5:49pm.
One more expense I forgot to address is private contractors who significantly overcharge the govt.
This is federal, but the same thing happens at a local level:
The Defense Department overpaid a billionaire oilman by as much as $200 million on several military contracts valued at nearly $2.7 billion, an internal audit has found.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. led a probe against Sargeant in October 2008, accusing him of using his close relationship with Jordan's royal family to secure exclusive rights over supply routes to U.S. bases in western Iraq, according to the Washington Post.
The Pentagon would have saved at least $180 million by choosing the lowest bidders on fuel contracts awarded to Sargeant, Waxman had calculated. The audit found that the prices paid to Sargeant were not reasonable because "no one else could transport the fuel through Jordan."
Submitted by sdduuuude on March 21, 2011 - 9:23am.
CA renter wrote:
One more expense I forgot to address is private contractors who significantly overcharge the govt.
I don't disagree with this, but it seems that this is exactly what the unions are - private contractors overcharging the government. Same thing, really.
One more expense I forgot to address is private contractors who significantly overcharge the govt.
I don't disagree with this, but it seems that this is exactly what the unions are - private contractors overcharging the government. Same thing, really.
The net result to the taxpayer may be the same... but where those overcharged dollars end up is very different. Concentrated at the top, or spread among the workers...
Submitted by sdduuuude on March 21, 2011 - 10:02am.
UCGal wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:
CA renter wrote:
One more expense I forgot to address is private contractors who significantly overcharge the govt.
I don't disagree with this, but it seems that this is exactly what the unions are - private contractors overcharging the government. Same thing, really.
The net result to the taxpayer may be the same... but where those overcharged dollars end up is very different. Concentrated at the top, or spread among the workers...
Submitted by CA renter on March 21, 2011 - 5:01pm.
UCGal wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:
CA renter wrote:
One more expense I forgot to address is private contractors who significantly overcharge the govt.
I don't disagree with this, but it seems that this is exactly what the unions are - private contractors overcharging the government. Same thing, really.
The net result to the taxpayer may be the same... but where those overcharged dollars end up is very different. Concentrated at the top, or spread among the workers...
Absoluetely correct, UCGal. The incomes of public workers is almost entirely spent right back into the economy that supports them (local taxpayers). Not so with high-level executives and "investors" who can take their money to other countries or spend it on yachts, planes, mansions, etc. in different locations.
Also, public sector employees are far more accountable than their private-sector counterparts.
I would say no more than 90% of our financial problems were caused by the public employee unions in California.
Back it up, paramount. Bring facts.
Or were you just 'making shit up'?
I see some problems with public unions, what's happened here in the City of San Diego is corrupt to the core.
But compared to getting gang-raped by the financial industry, the problems are minor. Do the math. As a matter of proportion, we have bigger problems than unions.
Right-wing populists, tea partiers, should be upset with wall street, banks and corporations. Instead they bitch to no end about liberals, unions and hollywood.
Entire generation of clueless idiots re-living Vietnam while corporations and robber barons plunder the country into oblivion.
Remember how the Tea Party originally started out as being against bailing out bankers and FBs? Then, it quietly morphed into being anti-union, anti-healthcare, and anti-taxes. I don't think that was an accident.
I agree. I have to say though the handlers behind them are pretty brilliant. The economic crisis was largely caused by wall street and reckless risk taking. But now somehow the blame falls on public employee unions. Really???
Submitted by paramount on March 21, 2011 - 7:42pm.
gandalf wrote:
paramount wrote:
I would say no more than 90% of our financial problems were caused by the public employee unions in California.
Back it up, paramount. Bring facts.
Or were you just 'making shit up'?
I see some problems with public unions, what's happened here in the City of San Diego is corrupt to the core.
But compared to getting gang-raped by the financial industry, the problems are minor. Do the math. As a matter of proportion, we have bigger problems than unions.
Right-wing populists, tea partiers, should be upset with wall street, banks and corporations. Instead they bitch to no end about liberals, unions and hollywood.
Entire generation of clueless idiots re-living Vietnam while corporations and robber barons plunder the country into oblivion.
Submitted by sdduuuude on March 21, 2011 - 8:59pm.
CA renter wrote:
UCGal wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:
CA renter wrote:
One more expense I forgot to address is private contractors who significantly overcharge the govt.
I don't disagree with this, but it seems that this is exactly what the unions are - private contractors overcharging the government. Same thing, really.
The net result to the taxpayer may be the same... but where those overcharged dollars end up is very different. Concentrated at the top, or spread among the workers...
Absoluetely correct, UCGal. The incomes of public workers is almost entirely spent right back into the economy that supports them (local taxpayers). Not so with high-level executives and "investors" who can take their money to other countries or spend it on yachts, planes, mansions, etc. in different locations.
Also, public sector employees are far more accountable than their private-sector counterparts.
ANother difference is that I can buy stock in those companies and share in the benefits. Not so with public employees.
Submitted by sdduuuude on March 21, 2011 - 9:20pm.
It is not clear to me how offshore tax havens make it OK for public unions to gouge taxpayers.
Nor is it clear to me how public unions gauging taxpayers (not only through salary, but pensions, also) make it OK for the government to bail out wall street.
It is stupid to be upset about one and not the other. It is a foolish discussion to say which is worse, and even more foolish to say one is OK while the other is not.
As far as I can tell, the companies who avoid taxes are just following the rules that are set up by they lawmakers. Again - the lawmakers' fault. Not only do they make loopholes so that companies can avoid tax, but they borrow and spend while doing it, making the individual taxpayer burden worse and wors.
In either case, the government is funnelling too much of the taxpayers money to someone who shouldn't have it.
Submitted by blahblahblah on March 22, 2011 - 7:41am.
Bitching about unions while the country is being gang-raped by corporate and financial interests is like complaining about mosquitoes while being eaten by a bear.
Bitching about unions while the country is being gang-raped by corporate and financial interests is like complaining about mosquitoes while being eaten by a bear.
I agree.
And on the topic of pensions... I've never worked public sector except an internship with the Nat'l weather service electronics tech shop one summer, while in college. Non-union. I've never been a union employee. That said - I had full, defined benefit pension with my private sector employer until we were acquired by another private sector employer in 2000. The new employer had a cash based pension program - (aka Portable Pension) that continued till 2009. Both pensions are now frozen.
Defined benefit pensions existed for non union private sector employees AS THE NORM until about a decade ago. My father, an engineer, non-union, private sector, retired with a nice pension from Cubic Corp.
My pensions were frozen - but I'll still get *something* when I retire. Not enough to live on... I wish they hadn't frozen the pensions... especially the first one - the defined benefit one. But they did. It's another in a long list of benefits that have been taken away for this private sector employee. It doesn't make me angry at the folks who still have benefits/pensions... it makes me ENVIOUS for what I used to have.
Submitted by blahblahblah on March 22, 2011 - 8:30am.
Taking away the private pensions was the first step. Then they can get all of the private workers to bitch about the "lazy union workers" who still get a pension. Whip up some phony outrage, angry talking heads on TV, etc... Pretty soon the masses are calling for blood and the public workers lose their pensions too. Meanwhile the white shoe boys are laughing all the way to their offshore bank accounts and megayachts.
We are so screwed, it is so obvious how they manipulate everyone but no one seems to notice. The union thing is a perfect example. The teaparty starts out with "No bailouts! No bailouts!" Then a couple of paid plants start screaming "No benefits for lazy public workers! No unions!" Pretty soon the whole herd is going along with it. People are like sheep, all you need is a sheepdog and you can make them go anywhere you want.
If I understand it correctly, ONLY govt workers are considered "the middle class". All other PEONS in the private sector exist ONLY to pay tax and shut up. The argument that because banks and mega corporations can steal from us seems to merit the argument that since they are engaged in theft we can too...
Govt workers are seriously disconnected from the reality that when their employers (private sector workers) are bust, it follows so are they.
American taxpayers just got screwed out of about $20 TRILLION -- more than US GDP. The wealth has been transferred to Wall Street banks, transnational corporations and wealthy individuals.
Meanwhile, the tea party is upset about school teachers.
Submitted by paramount on March 22, 2011 - 8:22pm.
permabear wrote:
paramount wrote:
There are two (2) types of workers in California:
1. Gov't Workers = Tax Takers
2. Private Sector Workers = Tax Payers
Source: John and Ken
What about the fact that public workers pay taxes?
I'll try and make this really easy:
Government workers don’t really pay taxes, all they do is return a portion of the taxpayer dollars originally generated in the private sector.
Private Sector = Makers
Public Sector = Takers
"Remember, people who work for the Government don't pay taxes, the people in the private sector pay their taxes for them, because every dollar in the Government Worker's paycheck, came from a Private Sector Taxpayer. The next time you hear a Government Worker say "I pay my Taxes too", tell them, "No you don't, I do, because every dollar you have came from me."
On the topic of pensions and public employee unions, 2 things to consider:
1/ Do we want to operate by the free market?
If so, then government employees should be at-will employees. Public employees are certainly not anymore "deserving" because they work harder than private citizens who pay taxes.
We can't have a class of government cadres who have job security, pensions and power over the people.
Under the market system, the Tea Partiers (those who show up at rallies) will have their day of reckoning. It will be too late for them.
2/ Do we want a government of the people for the people?
In that case, I would support government policies that uplift people in the public and private sectors.
The government should protect workers everywhere by making sure that they are paid decent living wages and given pensions.
The government should protect and provide opportunities to the most vulnerable amoung us first.
Right now, under our current system, how does the middle-class expect to be protected when the under-class is growing? I'm not seeing much solidarity between the middle and lower class. The two should be natural allies.
Condescending nonsense. Did you get 'Blog Points' with your local GOP for posting that?
Our government contributes to the economy in all kinds of ways. It builds roads, dams, utilities, provides fire and police services, public education, safe food, clean water. It fights wars, funds research that saves lives and invents computer networking technology that make this message board possible.
And I have some news for you. People who WORK for our government still WORK FOR A LIVING. Soldiers in our military, teachers in our public schools, firefighters and police in our towns and cities dealing with crime and disasters. These people WORK FOR A LIVING. Fucking idiot.
All of these goods, services and employees are paid with taxes we contribute to pay for things that WE THE PEOPLE want our government to do. Things that are INCREDIBLY USEFUL and IMPORTANT. And guess what? People who WORK for our government PAY TAXES TOO.
Submitted by paramount on March 22, 2011 - 9:11pm.
gandalf wrote:
No, you're wrong, paramount.
Condescending nonsense. Did you get 'Blog Points' with your local GOP for posting that?
Our government contributes to the economy in all kinds of ways. It builds roads, dams, utilities, provides fire and police services, public education, safe food, clean water. It fights wars, funds research that saves lives and invents computer networking technology that make this message board possible.
And I have some news for you. People who WORK for our government still WORK FOR A LIVING. Soldiers in our military, teachers in our public schools, firefighters and police in our towns and cities dealing with crime and disasters. These people WORK FOR A LIVING. Fucking idiot.
All of these goods, services and employees are paid with taxes we contribute to pay for things that WE THE PEOPLE want our government to do. Things that are INCREDIBLY USEFUL and IMPORTANT. And guess what? People who WORK for our government PAY TAXES TOO.
No I'm not and NO they don't.
Military personnel and gov't workers: not the same thing.
BTW: you can call me every name in the book and some that aren't, rest assured it has absolutely NO impact on me.
From gandalf's link:
On the American Jobs Creation Act
"In 2004, Congress passed the American Jobs Creation Act, which permitted countries to bring back profits from offshore one time at a reduced rate — paying 5.25 percent instead of 35 percent. And companies brought back about $312 billion that qualified for the break, and there's a fair amount of literature that shows very little job creation went on as a result of that. And most of that money was used to buy back stock. And companies right now are lobbying for a repeat of that break."
On remaining competitive
"The U.S. and other countries need to create climates that are conducive to business. That's absolutely true. As long as this system exists where companies have the ability to shift profits, they're going to take advantage of that. I guess the question is: Do we want to have a system where your taxable income has so little relation to where the real-world economic activity takes place and, more broadly, the question it raises about the fairness of the tax system — the result of this is that it shifts the tax burden to the people that don't have the ability to do this, i.e., the 99 percent of Americans who don't have access to sophisticated tax advisers and also to the companies that are not multinational."
------------------
So much for the "rich provide the jobs" hogwash. Trickle-down is a HUGE FAILURE.
BTW, can someone tells us again how the unions caused all our financial problems?
Who said they caused ALL of our financial problems?
I would say no more than 90% of our financial problems were caused by the public employee unions in California.
March 17, 2011
Taxes are too high for average Americans because large powerful corporations don't pay taxes.
Nice job reporting on this, NPR.
Ah yes, the good old Double Irish...
Who said they caused ALL of our financial problems?
I would say no more than 90% of our financial problems were caused by the public employee unions in California.
How do you arrive at your 90%?
How did you factor in tax breaks (including Prop 13 protection that subsidizes the profits of RE "investors"), or the added burden of an increasingly large illegal immigrant population? How did you factor in the housing bubble and subsequent burst? How about the investments that the pension funds lost so much money on (that had nothing to do with the unions, BTW)? Did you factor in the bond measures that voters have repeatedly voted for, many of whom don't even grasp that these bonds represent DEBT (kid you not, I've had some Republican friends and relatives who thought that bonds "paid for themselves")?
You think unions are responsible for 90% of our budget problems...seriously?
Back it up, paramount. Bring facts.
Or were you just 'making shit up'?
I see some problems with public unions, what's happened here in the City of San Diego is corrupt to the core.
But compared to getting gang-raped by the financial industry, the problems are minor. Do the math. As a matter of proportion, we have bigger problems than unions.
Right-wing populists, tea partiers, should be upset with wall street, banks and corporations. Instead they bitch to no end about liberals, unions and hollywood.
Entire generation of clueless idiots re-living Vietnam while corporations and robber barons plunder the country into oblivion.
Back it up, paramount. Bring facts.
Or were you just 'making shit up'?
I see some problems with public unions, what's happened here in the City of San Diego is corrupt to the core.
But compared to getting gang-raped by the financial industry, the problems are minor. Do the math. As a matter of proportion, we have bigger problems than unions.
Right-wing populists, tea partiers, should be upset with wall street, banks and corporations. Instead they bitch to no end about liberals, unions and hollywood.
Entire generation of clueless idiots re-living Vietnam while corporations and robber barons plunder the country into oblivion.
Remember how the Tea Party originally started out as being against bailing out bankers and FBs? Then, it quietly morphed into being anti-union, anti-healthcare, and anti-taxes. I don't think that was an accident.
One more expense I forgot to address is private contractors who significantly overcharge the govt.
This is federal, but the same thing happens at a local level:
The Defense Department overpaid a billionaire oilman by as much as $200 million on several military contracts valued at nearly $2.7 billion, an internal audit has found.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. led a probe against Sargeant in October 2008, accusing him of using his close relationship with Jordan's royal family to secure exclusive rights over supply routes to U.S. bases in western Iraq, according to the Washington Post.
The Pentagon would have saved at least $180 million by choosing the lowest bidders on fuel contracts awarded to Sargeant, Waxman had calculated. The audit found that the prices paid to Sargeant were not reasonable because "no one else could transport the fuel through Jordan."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/...
I don't disagree with this, but it seems that this is exactly what the unions are - private contractors overcharging the government. Same thing, really.
I don't disagree with this, but it seems that this is exactly what the unions are - private contractors overcharging the government. Same thing, really.
The net result to the taxpayer may be the same... but where those overcharged dollars end up is very different. Concentrated at the top, or spread among the workers...
I don't disagree with this, but it seems that this is exactly what the unions are - private contractors overcharging the government. Same thing, really.
The net result to the taxpayer may be the same... but where those overcharged dollars end up is very different. Concentrated at the top, or spread among the workers...
I can't say I care who screws me over.
I don't disagree with this, but it seems that this is exactly what the unions are - private contractors overcharging the government. Same thing, really.
The net result to the taxpayer may be the same... but where those overcharged dollars end up is very different. Concentrated at the top, or spread among the workers...
Absoluetely correct, UCGal. The incomes of public workers is almost entirely spent right back into the economy that supports them (local taxpayers). Not so with high-level executives and "investors" who can take their money to other countries or spend it on yachts, planes, mansions, etc. in different locations.
Also, public sector employees are far more accountable than their private-sector counterparts.
The Title is misleading. The title of the article should be
How Offshore Tax Havens Help Companies STEAL Billions from Tax Payers.
Back it up, paramount. Bring facts.
Or were you just 'making shit up'?
I see some problems with public unions, what's happened here in the City of San Diego is corrupt to the core.
But compared to getting gang-raped by the financial industry, the problems are minor. Do the math. As a matter of proportion, we have bigger problems than unions.
Right-wing populists, tea partiers, should be upset with wall street, banks and corporations. Instead they bitch to no end about liberals, unions and hollywood.
Entire generation of clueless idiots re-living Vietnam while corporations and robber barons plunder the country into oblivion.
Remember how the Tea Party originally started out as being against bailing out bankers and FBs? Then, it quietly morphed into being anti-union, anti-healthcare, and anti-taxes. I don't think that was an accident.
I agree. I have to say though the handlers behind them are pretty brilliant. The economic crisis was largely caused by wall street and reckless risk taking. But now somehow the blame falls on public employee unions. Really???
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
— Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Back it up, paramount. Bring facts.
Or were you just 'making shit up'?
I see some problems with public unions, what's happened here in the City of San Diego is corrupt to the core.
But compared to getting gang-raped by the financial industry, the problems are minor. Do the math. As a matter of proportion, we have bigger problems than unions.
Right-wing populists, tea partiers, should be upset with wall street, banks and corporations. Instead they bitch to no end about liberals, unions and hollywood.
Entire generation of clueless idiots re-living Vietnam while corporations and robber barons plunder the country into oblivion.
There are two (2) types of workers in California:
1. Gov't Workers = Tax Takers
2. Private Sector Workers = Tax Payers
Source: John and Ken
I don't disagree with this, but it seems that this is exactly what the unions are - private contractors overcharging the government. Same thing, really.
The net result to the taxpayer may be the same... but where those overcharged dollars end up is very different. Concentrated at the top, or spread among the workers...
Absoluetely correct, UCGal. The incomes of public workers is almost entirely spent right back into the economy that supports them (local taxpayers). Not so with high-level executives and "investors" who can take their money to other countries or spend it on yachts, planes, mansions, etc. in different locations.
Also, public sector employees are far more accountable than their private-sector counterparts.
ANother difference is that I can buy stock in those companies and share in the benefits. Not so with public employees.
1. Gov't Workers = Tax Takers
2. Private Sector Workers = Tax Payers
Source: John and Ken
What about the fact that public workers pay taxes?
It is not clear to me how offshore tax havens make it OK for public unions to gouge taxpayers.
Nor is it clear to me how public unions gauging taxpayers (not only through salary, but pensions, also) make it OK for the government to bail out wall street.
It is stupid to be upset about one and not the other. It is a foolish discussion to say which is worse, and even more foolish to say one is OK while the other is not.
As far as I can tell, the companies who avoid taxes are just following the rules that are set up by they lawmakers. Again - the lawmakers' fault. Not only do they make loopholes so that companies can avoid tax, but they borrow and spend while doing it, making the individual taxpayer burden worse and wors.
In either case, the government is funnelling too much of the taxpayers money to someone who shouldn't have it.
Bitching about unions while the country is being gang-raped by corporate and financial interests is like complaining about mosquitoes while being eaten by a bear.
I agree.
And on the topic of pensions... I've never worked public sector except an internship with the Nat'l weather service electronics tech shop one summer, while in college. Non-union. I've never been a union employee. That said - I had full, defined benefit pension with my private sector employer until we were acquired by another private sector employer in 2000. The new employer had a cash based pension program - (aka Portable Pension) that continued till 2009. Both pensions are now frozen.
Defined benefit pensions existed for non union private sector employees AS THE NORM until about a decade ago. My father, an engineer, non-union, private sector, retired with a nice pension from Cubic Corp.
My pensions were frozen - but I'll still get *something* when I retire. Not enough to live on... I wish they hadn't frozen the pensions... especially the first one - the defined benefit one. But they did. It's another in a long list of benefits that have been taken away for this private sector employee. It doesn't make me angry at the folks who still have benefits/pensions... it makes me ENVIOUS for what I used to have.
Taking away the private pensions was the first step. Then they can get all of the private workers to bitch about the "lazy union workers" who still get a pension. Whip up some phony outrage, angry talking heads on TV, etc... Pretty soon the masses are calling for blood and the public workers lose their pensions too. Meanwhile the white shoe boys are laughing all the way to their offshore bank accounts and megayachts.
We are so screwed, it is so obvious how they manipulate everyone but no one seems to notice. The union thing is a perfect example. The teaparty starts out with "No bailouts! No bailouts!" Then a couple of paid plants start screaming "No benefits for lazy public workers! No unions!" Pretty soon the whole herd is going along with it. People are like sheep, all you need is a sheepdog and you can make them go anywhere you want.
If I understand it correctly, ONLY govt workers are considered "the middle class". All other PEONS in the private sector exist ONLY to pay tax and shut up. The argument that because banks and mega corporations can steal from us seems to merit the argument that since they are engaged in theft we can too...
Govt workers are seriously disconnected from the reality that when their employers (private sector workers) are bust, it follows so are they.
American taxpayers just got screwed out of about $20 TRILLION -- more than US GDP. The wealth has been transferred to Wall Street banks, transnational corporations and wealthy individuals.
Meanwhile, the tea party is upset about school teachers.
The most pathetic generation of Americans EVER.
1. Gov't Workers = Tax Takers
2. Private Sector Workers = Tax Payers
Source: John and Ken
What about the fact that public workers pay taxes?
I'll try and make this really easy:
Government workers don’t really pay taxes, all they do is return a portion of the taxpayer dollars originally generated in the private sector.
Private Sector = Makers
Public Sector = Takers
"Remember, people who work for the Government don't pay taxes, the people in the private sector pay their taxes for them, because every dollar in the Government Worker's paycheck, came from a Private Sector Taxpayer. The next time you hear a Government Worker say "I pay my Taxes too", tell them, "No you don't, I do, because every dollar you have came from me."
On the topic of pensions and public employee unions, 2 things to consider:
1/ Do we want to operate by the free market?
If so, then government employees should be at-will employees. Public employees are certainly not anymore "deserving" because they work harder than private citizens who pay taxes.
We can't have a class of government cadres who have job security, pensions and power over the people.
Under the market system, the Tea Partiers (those who show up at rallies) will have their day of reckoning. It will be too late for them.
2/ Do we want a government of the people for the people?
In that case, I would support government policies that uplift people in the public and private sectors.
The government should protect workers everywhere by making sure that they are paid decent living wages and given pensions.
The government should protect and provide opportunities to the most vulnerable amoung us first.
Right now, under our current system, how does the middle-class expect to be protected when the under-class is growing? I'm not seeing much solidarity between the middle and lower class. The two should be natural allies.
No, you're wrong, paramount.
Condescending nonsense. Did you get 'Blog Points' with your local GOP for posting that?
Our government contributes to the economy in all kinds of ways. It builds roads, dams, utilities, provides fire and police services, public education, safe food, clean water. It fights wars, funds research that saves lives and invents computer networking technology that make this message board possible.
And I have some news for you. People who WORK for our government still WORK FOR A LIVING. Soldiers in our military, teachers in our public schools, firefighters and police in our towns and cities dealing with crime and disasters. These people WORK FOR A LIVING. Fucking idiot.
All of these goods, services and employees are paid with taxes we contribute to pay for things that WE THE PEOPLE want our government to do. Things that are INCREDIBLY USEFUL and IMPORTANT. And guess what? People who WORK for our government PAY TAXES TOO.
Condescending nonsense. Did you get 'Blog Points' with your local GOP for posting that?
Our government contributes to the economy in all kinds of ways. It builds roads, dams, utilities, provides fire and police services, public education, safe food, clean water. It fights wars, funds research that saves lives and invents computer networking technology that make this message board possible.
And I have some news for you. People who WORK for our government still WORK FOR A LIVING. Soldiers in our military, teachers in our public schools, firefighters and police in our towns and cities dealing with crime and disasters. These people WORK FOR A LIVING. Fucking idiot.
All of these goods, services and employees are paid with taxes we contribute to pay for things that WE THE PEOPLE want our government to do. Things that are INCREDIBLY USEFUL and IMPORTANT. And guess what? People who WORK for our government PAY TAXES TOO.
No I'm not and NO they don't.
Military personnel and gov't workers: not the same thing.
BTW: you can call me every name in the book and some that aren't, rest assured it has absolutely NO impact on me.
So paramount...
If you serve in the military, where does your paycheck come from?
What about benefits if you serve in the military? Healthcare? Education?
Stop slandering people who work for our government.
A lot of those people are putting their lives at risk to protect your freedom to make an ass of yourself on this message board.
And they pay taxes just like you.
Corporations DON'T pay taxes.
Think it over, tea baggers.
Maybe you're batting for the wrong team.